13 ms·

His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conse

His economics are sound, but I often find that his takes on social issues are extremely reductionist. His social views a lot of the time are just standard conservative views (and wrong IMO), I wish he wasn't being praised for that. One example being his view on systemic racism, which he described as: “It does remind me of the propaganda tactics of Joseph Goebbels in the age of the Nazis, in which he was supposed to have said that people will believe any lie if it’s repeated long enough and loud enough. And that’s what we’re getting.” I just can't take this sort of person seriously in regards to social issues. I just can't do it. And he does this all the time, all of his social views are just ultra-reductionist conservatives views that are identical to the things my hardcore mask-refusing conservative relatives post on facebook.

alanaut24 6y ago
What exactly do you disagree with?
- deiznof 6y ago
  The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. Like, somehow it's not the government snatching people up in vans that is Nazi-like, it's actually the anti-racist protesters that are Nazi's to the genius brain of Thomas Sowell. How do people idolize this guy?
  - ghufran_syed 6y ago
    if you define “conservative” as “wrong”, then I understand your point, but then your statement is trivial - it’s a statement of opinion, “sowell is wrong”, masquerading as evidence and using 12 times as many words as needed.
    - deiznof 6y ago
      Yes, I am giving my opinion on Thomas Sowell in a post about Thomas Sowell. My post is very short, like a third of it is a quote from him. And I didn't define conservative as wrong, I said he is a standard, non-special conservative AND wrong. What are your actual disagreements?
      - s4n1ty 6y ago
        You're offering commentary, not a counterargument. What specifically is Sowell wrong about?
        SantalBlush 6y ago
        What specifically is he right about? Why do we require evidence when someone says he is wrong, but we do not require evidence for the numerous times in this thread where people say his book is “required reading”? First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees.
        tengbretson 6y ago
        > First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees. Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source material we're talking about. So what is it?
        TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        I'm asking for concrete evidence that his opinions have predictive power which has been assessed independently. If no such evidence exists then all we have is just-so story-telling, which can be discounted. The fact that a lot of people seem to believe his ideas are convincing is irrelevant to this discussion. People believe all kinds of things because they sound plausible to them - partly because other people have made careers out of working out how to push people's "This sounds plausible so I shall believe it" buttons. Which is why reproducible evidence and independent peer review are things. And why it's absolutely reasonable - in fact required - to question assertions that can't be grounded in them.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. With regard to the Fox News-watching American conservative base and bad Nazi analogies, it's useful to keep in mind what you're dealing with. Grover Norquist said in an interview in 2003 that the estate tax is equivalent to the Holocaust. When Terry Gross politely allowed him to walk that statement back, he said that it's just morally equivalent to the Holocaust. [2] Of course all the thinking involved is total bullshit and the man is batshit crazy, but the interview is not without interest. Such a lunatic must be the object of widespread derision on the right, right? Nope. Almost all Republican lawmakers sign his bizarre loyalty oath upon taking office, pledging they're not going to raise taxes. [3] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/01/06/out-of-their-anti-tax-minds/3d6e1bd0-8160-4779-a7f6-0a42e3974e72/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/01/06/o... [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1452983 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145298... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-grover-norquist-pledge-signers-list-fiscal-cliff-republicans-tax-2012-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-grover-norquist-pledg...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    That's the point of Thomas Sowell though. To say things that white conservatives believe but suffer ridicule for saying. He makes white conservatives feel comfortable in their racism. Same goes for Walter Williams.
    - deiznof 6y ago
      Right, but I had no idea HN people were huge fans of the guy too.
      - rukittenme 6y ago
        Must be hard. Hating it when the ideas of a black author are supported, admired, and shape the political leanings of a white audience.
        deiznof 6y ago
        Literally everything you say is a straw man, you should really stop doing that.
        rukittenme 6y ago
        It's not a straw man to belittle you. Next time you respond to someone, try not to prefix it with "right" if you don't want to signal your agreement.
        x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        It's not a "white audience", it's a white audience whose identity hinges on white supremacy.
        rukittenme 6y ago
        I hate it when white supremacists admire and respect black authors.
    - alexarnesen 6y ago
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Maybe Sowell wrote this before the internet - the man is 90 - but today I mentally turn the page whenever something is compared to Nazis. Both the left and right do this, and it's almost never meaningful. More a lazy way to call your opponents poopheads.
    - deiznof 6y ago
      Unfortunately he said it in an interview about 3 weeks ago on Fox News.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      Well in fairness he didn't actually compare anything to Nazis. He compared something to one single precept that was espoused and made well-known by them. Unlike say the "Punch a Nazi" movement from last year that literally claimed modern day Nazis are numerous and living amongst us.
  - rukittenme 6y ago
    > How do people idolize this guy? Read his books and find out. You'll be supporting a black author if you do.
tlear 6y ago
It is immeasurable, undefinable, unchangeable. As a propagandist you must take care to use things that can not be countered. Systemic racism is one of those. What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom.
- deiznof 6y ago
  Something being difficult to precisely measure does not make it a Nazi tactic. This is just an attempt to reframe the argument to be more charitable to Sowell, but no, his argument is bad.
- RoboticWater 6y ago
  If it were immeasurable and undefinable, then we wouldn't have studies showing disproportionate sentencing of Black people [1] or the persistent negative effects of redlining [2]. And if it were unchangeable, we wouldn't be able to construct studies to show the specific choke-points of racial inequality, nor suggest policy solutions to remedy them. > What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? I don't understand this. Why do you want to measure against other countries, and why phrase it like you just want one number? Is it not enough to claim that certain inequalities appear in certain aspects of our society? It would be like asking for a measure of our foreign policy. Sure, we could probably make one, but that seems like an entirely inadequate means of actually assessing what's happening in a complex sociological ecosystem. Our assessments have to be more individualized. > That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom. You can do that with anything though. I've heard all the same language used in Climate Change discourse: "well, if you don't think humans caused climate change, they'll just label you anti-science and beat you out of the discussion." This is just a blatant rhetorical tactic to shift discussion from about the actual problem—and indeed all the evidence that this problem has—to nebulous Twitter mobs. [1] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852856 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852856
mac01021 6y ago
Do you have any examples not related to race relations? What do you mean by "reductionist"?
ralusek 6y ago
His social commentary is some of his most important work. If you had to isolate Sowell's most repeated, potent point, it would be that disparities in population outcomes are nowhere near sufficient to infer discrimination as a primary contributor. If people better understood this single fact, it would go a long way to disentangling the absolute mess of a concept that is systemic racism.
mac01021 6y ago
Invoking similarity to Nazi propaganda is almost always a strategic error, and Thomas Sowell should know better. The actions of the third reich were so heinous that they are mostly recognized as precluding any comparison with the thoughts or actions of any normal, nonheinous people, and when you try to articulate such a comparison you come off in many or most people's eyes as totally hyperbolic. Still, if you're willing to remain cool headed and entertain the most reasonable interpretation of what's being said, you'll have to admit that claims about 21st-century sociopolitical rhetoric having features in common with Nazi propaganda does not need to imply any kind of moral equivalence between the relevant 21st century activists and the Nazis. The rhetoric of the third reich is probably the most famous example of a particular strategy, in which particular bugs of human psychology are exploited using scapegoating and the cultivation of a sense of victimhood. One could very reasonably believe that either (or both) of Donald Trump and lefty-social-justice-warrior types have been using such strategies to garner support WITHOUT thinking even with a few brain cells that either is morally comparable to the Nazis. I have to think that this is how Mr. Sowell expects you to interpret what he's saying. It would be nice if he had an example other than the Nazis to use, since the holocaust carries so much emotional baggage, but there's just no other historical example of this rhetorical strategy that is so well known or so universally recognized as being in the wrong.
mtraven 6y ago
Spurious comparisons to Nazis are a favorite tactic of his -- he famously compared Obama to Hitler because they both had enthusiastic crowds for their speeches. It's a mystery to me why anybody takes this man seriously.
viburnum 6y ago
There’s a link between his social views and his economics.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  There's a link between his social views and economics as a mainstream discipline.
baddox 6y ago
It’s really remarkable for one’s takeaway from the Nazis to be that accusations of racism might be false.
philwelch 6y ago
Sowell has some well-thought-out views on these issues, and he’s been expressing many of them for decades, but he has a curmudgeonly side as well. And I think if you understand his more well-thought-out views on these issues, I think you’ll also at least understand his curmudgeonly attitude. Oddly enough, what you’re doing now—if it were done to dismiss the thoughts of a “progressive” black person—would probably be characterized as “tone policing”, and to whatever extent that’s a legitimate concept I think it applies to someone who makes his fair share of curmudgeonly remarks in the context of many decades of otherwise thoughtful and reasoned argument.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Sowell has been criticized widely for his reductionist take on economics. Not sure what "tone policing" has to do with anything...
  - philwelch 6y ago
    Did you mean to reply to a different thread? This was about Sowell’s conservative social views and the sometimes intemperate way he expresses them, not about his economics (which the person I’m replying to expressed an appreciation for).
- niyikiza 6y ago
  I cannot agree more. I think he's brilliant, and I've learned a lot from his ideas. However, I've seen him in multiple interviews putting forth evidence-free ideas aligned with Republican talk points.
JungleGymSam 6y ago
Everything you've said has demonstrated that you're _choosing_ not to understand, or agree with, his arguments rather than disagreeing with them through counter arguments and evidence.
chmod600 6y ago
Looking at his claim isolated from his evidence is hard to discuss. I think that also came from a TV interview, which is not the ideal forum for him to present evidence. (When discussing "systemic racism", let's set aside specific racism, which can (and should) be specifically called out and changed.) To explore systemic racism in more detail, we'd want to look at some measure (not necessarily a single number) of systemic racism. Once we have a way of measuring it (even crudely), we could compare across various races, countries, states, and regions. Importantly, we could compare it within a given race -- if systemic racism varies within a race, then clearly we need to revisit the definition because there are other factors at work. We could also look for other signs that something is awry, like areas that are "systemically racist" against the most politically powerful group. Dr. Sowell has been performing this kind of research and analysis for decades, and documents it extensively in his many books. From the quotation above, it seems that he believes that he believes that the term "systemic racism" has no useful definition remaining after this analysis, and that it's being used as propaganda to undermine institutions that stand in the way of political goals. If you believe that systemic racism is a useful construct that leads to solutions for a better world, then by all means follow where it leads. But please focus on offering alternative policies that lead to good results, and adapt (or revert) those policies if they lead to bad results. Don't just turn it into a never-ending "discussion" that divides people with no solution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
> I just can't take this sort of person seriously in regards to social issues. I just can't do it. Unfortunate, but it’s your loss. I definitely understand where you’re coming from, as I thought the same a few years ago. Challenge yourself to objectively listen to people who you think you disagree with. You might find that things you were certain about have serious flaws. There are many reasons why terms like “systemic racism” are not constructive, and frankly, he’s not at all wrong on that point.
spopejoy 6y ago
If you're a little older and were reading papers in the late 80s and 90s, Thomas Sowell was a fixture of the Op-Ed as a reliable apologist for capitalism and white supremacy. It's definitely _why_ he was so prolific at that time because back then papers published hardly any Black views in editorials, much less left/liberal Black ones. Concepts that are common now (slavery's legacy is still with us; criminal justice is a huge problem for minorities; etc) would get you banned from pretty much anywhere then. But cheerily offering views like "Stop helping Black people" and "people are poor because they're lazy" with a Black writer was positively applauded. There was kind of a moment around then, you had Ward Connerly on the UC board of directors busily dismantling affirmative action, Clarence Thomas' appointment, and Sowell blowing up the op-ed pages. There was no question that if you were a conservative Black you would be amplified and supported all over the place. Needless to say, this led me to dismiss him intellectually then, as his political arguments are threadbare paleoconservativism. I haven't looked at his economic work, but given the appaling history of arch-conservative economics from "giants" like Friedman, I can't imagine I'd find anything very persuasive.

alanaut24 6y ago

What exactly do you disagree with?

deiznof 6y ago
The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. Like, somehow it's not the government snatching people up in vans that is Nazi-like, it's actually the anti-racist protesters that are Nazi's to the genius brain of Thomas Sowell. How do people idolize this guy?
- ghufran_syed 6y ago
  if you define “conservative” as “wrong”, then I understand your point, but then your statement is trivial - it’s a statement of opinion, “sowell is wrong”, masquerading as evidence and using 12 times as many words as needed.
  - deiznof 6y ago
    Yes, I am giving my opinion on Thomas Sowell in a post about Thomas Sowell. My post is very short, like a third of it is a quote from him. And I didn't define conservative as wrong, I said he is a standard, non-special conservative AND wrong. What are your actual disagreements?
    - s4n1ty 6y ago
      You're offering commentary, not a counterargument. What specifically is Sowell wrong about?
      - SantalBlush 6y ago
        What specifically is he right about? Why do we require evidence when someone says he is wrong, but we do not require evidence for the numerous times in this thread where people say his book is “required reading”? First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees.
        tengbretson 6y ago
        > First, everyone here who likes Sowell can put forth specific, concrete examples where he is right, instead of making vague statements about how brilliant he is and then demanding evidence only when someone disagrees. Why? The positive argument already exists. It's Sowell's writing. What are you asking for a cliff's notes? The disagreement you're talking about must obviously stem from something in the source material we're talking about. So what is it?
        TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        I'm asking for concrete evidence that his opinions have predictive power which has been assessed independently. If no such evidence exists then all we have is just-so story-telling, which can be discounted. The fact that a lot of people seem to believe his ideas are convincing is irrelevant to this discussion. People believe all kinds of things because they sound plausible to them - partly because other people have made careers out of working out how to push people's "This sounds plausible so I shall believe it" buttons. Which is why reproducible evidence and independent peer review are things. And why it's absolutely reasonable - in fact required - to question assertions that can't be grounded in them.
- justin66 6y ago
  > The idea that calling out systemic racism is like a Nazi propaganda tactic. Look up any of his other views on literally any social issues, it's just whatever Fox News-esque conservative would want to hear. With regard to the Fox News-watching American conservative base and bad Nazi analogies, it's useful to keep in mind what you're dealing with. Grover Norquist said in an interview in 2003 that the estate tax is equivalent to the Holocaust. When Terry Gross politely allowed him to walk that statement back, he said that it's just morally equivalent to the Holocaust. [2] Of course all the thinking involved is total bullshit and the man is batshit crazy, but the interview is not without interest. Such a lunatic must be the object of widespread derision on the right, right? Nope. Almost all Republican lawmakers sign his bizarre loyalty oath upon taking office, pledging they're not going to raise taxes. [3] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/01/06/out-of-their-anti-tax-minds/3d6e1bd0-8160-4779-a7f6-0a42e3974e72/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/01/06/o... [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1452983 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145298... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-grover-norquist-pledge-signers-list-fiscal-cliff-republicans-tax-2012-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-grover-norquist-pledg...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  That's the point of Thomas Sowell though. To say things that white conservatives believe but suffer ridicule for saying. He makes white conservatives feel comfortable in their racism. Same goes for Walter Williams.
  - deiznof 6y ago
    Right, but I had no idea HN people were huge fans of the guy too.
    - rukittenme 6y ago
      Must be hard. Hating it when the ideas of a black author are supported, admired, and shape the political leanings of a white audience.
      - deiznof 6y ago
        Literally everything you say is a straw man, you should really stop doing that.
        rukittenme 6y ago
        It's not a straw man to belittle you. Next time you respond to someone, try not to prefix it with "right" if you don't want to signal your agreement.
      - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
        It's not a "white audience", it's a white audience whose identity hinges on white supremacy.
        rukittenme 6y ago
        I hate it when white supremacists admire and respect black authors.
  - alexarnesen 6y ago
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Maybe Sowell wrote this before the internet - the man is 90 - but today I mentally turn the page whenever something is compared to Nazis. Both the left and right do this, and it's almost never meaningful. More a lazy way to call your opponents poopheads.
  - deiznof 6y ago
    Unfortunately he said it in an interview about 3 weeks ago on Fox News.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Well in fairness he didn't actually compare anything to Nazis. He compared something to one single precept that was espoused and made well-known by them. Unlike say the "Punch a Nazi" movement from last year that literally claimed modern day Nazis are numerous and living amongst us.
- rukittenme 6y ago
  > How do people idolize this guy? Read his books and find out. You'll be supporting a black author if you do.

tlear 6y ago

It is immeasurable, undefinable, unchangeable. As a propagandist you must take care to use things that can not be countered. Systemic racism is one of those. What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom.

deiznof 6y ago
Something being difficult to precisely measure does not make it a Nazi tactic. This is just an attempt to reframe the argument to be more charitable to Sowell, but no, his argument is bad.
RoboticWater 6y ago
If it were immeasurable and undefinable, then we wouldn't have studies showing disproportionate sentencing of Black people [1] or the persistent negative effects of redlining [2]. And if it were unchangeable, we wouldn't be able to construct studies to show the specific choke-points of racial inequality, nor suggest policy solutions to remedy them. > What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US? I don't understand this. Why do you want to measure against other countries, and why phrase it like you just want one number? Is it not enough to claim that certain inequalities appear in certain aspects of our society? It would be like asking for a measure of our foreign policy. Sure, we could probably make one, but that seems like an entirely inadequate means of actually assessing what's happening in a complex sociological ecosystem. Our assessments have to be more individualized. > That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom. You can do that with anything though. I've heard all the same language used in Climate Change discourse: "well, if you don't think humans caused climate change, they'll just label you anti-science and beat you out of the discussion." This is just a blatant rhetorical tactic to shift discussion from about the actual problem—and indeed all the evidence that this problem has—to nebulous Twitter mobs. [1] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852856 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852856

mac01021 6y ago

Do you have any examples not related to race relations? What do you mean by "reductionist"?

ralusek 6y ago

His social commentary is some of his most important work. If you had to isolate Sowell's most repeated, potent point, it would be that disparities in population outcomes are nowhere near sufficient to infer discrimination as a primary contributor. If people better understood this single fact, it would go a long way to disentangling the absolute mess of a concept that is systemic racism.

mac01021 6y ago

Invoking similarity to Nazi propaganda is almost always a strategic error, and Thomas Sowell should know better. The actions of the third reich were so heinous that they are mostly recognized as precluding any comparison with the thoughts or actions of any normal, nonheinous people, and when you try to articulate such a comparison you come off in many or most people's eyes as totally hyperbolic. Still, if you're willing to remain cool headed and entertain the most reasonable interpretation of what's being said, you'll have to admit that claims about 21st-century sociopolitical rhetoric having features in common with Nazi propaganda does not need to imply any kind of moral equivalence between the relevant 21st century activists and the Nazis. The rhetoric of the third reich is probably the most famous example of a particular strategy, in which particular bugs of human psychology are exploited using scapegoating and the cultivation of a sense of victimhood. One could very reasonably believe that either (or both) of Donald Trump and lefty-social-justice-warrior types have been using such strategies to garner support WITHOUT thinking even with a few brain cells that either is morally comparable to the Nazis. I have to think that this is how Mr. Sowell expects you to interpret what he's saying. It would be nice if he had an example other than the Nazis to use, since the holocaust carries so much emotional baggage, but there's just no other historical example of this rhetorical strategy that is so well known or so universally recognized as being in the wrong.

mtraven 6y ago

Spurious comparisons to Nazis are a favorite tactic of his -- he famously compared Obama to Hitler because they both had enthusiastic crowds for their speeches. It's a mystery to me why anybody takes this man seriously.

viburnum 6y ago

There’s a link between his social views and his economics.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
There's a link between his social views and economics as a mainstream discipline.

baddox 6y ago

It’s really remarkable for one’s takeaway from the Nazis to be that accusations of racism might be false.

philwelch 6y ago

Sowell has some well-thought-out views on these issues, and he’s been expressing many of them for decades, but he has a curmudgeonly side as well. And I think if you understand his more well-thought-out views on these issues, I think you’ll also at least understand his curmudgeonly attitude. Oddly enough, what you’re doing now—if it were done to dismiss the thoughts of a “progressive” black person—would probably be characterized as “tone policing”, and to whatever extent that’s a legitimate concept I think it applies to someone who makes his fair share of curmudgeonly remarks in the context of many decades of otherwise thoughtful and reasoned argument.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Sowell has been criticized widely for his reductionist take on economics. Not sure what "tone policing" has to do with anything...
- philwelch 6y ago
  Did you mean to reply to a different thread? This was about Sowell’s conservative social views and the sometimes intemperate way he expresses them, not about his economics (which the person I’m replying to expressed an appreciation for).
niyikiza 6y ago
I cannot agree more. I think he's brilliant, and I've learned a lot from his ideas. However, I've seen him in multiple interviews putting forth evidence-free ideas aligned with Republican talk points.

JungleGymSam 6y ago

Everything you've said has demonstrated that you're _choosing_ not to understand, or agree with, his arguments rather than disagreeing with them through counter arguments and evidence.

chmod600 6y ago

Looking at his claim isolated from his evidence is hard to discuss. I think that also came from a TV interview, which is not the ideal forum for him to present evidence. (When discussing "systemic racism", let's set aside specific racism, which can (and should) be specifically called out and changed.) To explore systemic racism in more detail, we'd want to look at some measure (not necessarily a single number) of systemic racism. Once we have a way of measuring it (even crudely), we could compare across various races, countries, states, and regions. Importantly, we could compare it within a given race -- if systemic racism varies within a race, then clearly we need to revisit the definition because there are other factors at work. We could also look for other signs that something is awry, like areas that are "systemically racist" against the most politically powerful group. Dr. Sowell has been performing this kind of research and analysis for decades, and documents it extensively in his many books. From the quotation above, it seems that he believes that he believes that the term "systemic racism" has no useful definition remaining after this analysis, and that it's being used as propaganda to undermine institutions that stand in the way of political goals. If you believe that systemic racism is a useful construct that leads to solutions for a better world, then by all means follow where it leads. But please focus on offering alternative policies that lead to good results, and adapt (or revert) those policies if they lead to bad results. Don't just turn it into a never-ending "discussion" that divides people with no solution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

> I just can't take this sort of person seriously in regards to social issues. I just can't do it. Unfortunate, but it’s your loss. I definitely understand where you’re coming from, as I thought the same a few years ago. Challenge yourself to objectively listen to people who you think you disagree with. You might find that things you were certain about have serious flaws. There are many reasons why terms like “systemic racism” are not constructive, and frankly, he’s not at all wrong on that point.

spopejoy 6y ago

If you're a little older and were reading papers in the late 80s and 90s, Thomas Sowell was a fixture of the Op-Ed as a reliable apologist for capitalism and white supremacy. It's definitely _why_ he was so prolific at that time because back then papers published hardly any Black views in editorials, much less left/liberal Black ones. Concepts that are common now (slavery's legacy is still with us; criminal justice is a huge problem for minorities; etc) would get you banned from pretty much anywhere then. But cheerily offering views like "Stop helping Black people" and "people are poor because they're lazy" with a Black writer was positively applauded. There was kind of a moment around then, you had Ward Connerly on the UC board of directors busily dismantling affirmative action, Clarence Thomas' appointment, and Sowell blowing up the op-ed pages. There was no question that if you were a conservative Black you would be amplified and supported all over the place. Needless to say, this led me to dismiss him intellectually then, as his political arguments are threadbare paleoconservativism. I haven't looked at his economic work, but given the appaling history of arch-conservative economics from "giants" like Friedman, I can't imagine I'd find anything very persuasive.